Where there is a modification of an indictment in exchange for part of concurrent crimes in the appellate court, the order of the appellate court judgment.

In the first instance court, it recognized the forgery of public document and the concurrent crime of occupational embezzlement as one and sentenced to a single punishment. In the case of changing the indictment in exchange for fraud at the appellate court, the subject of the trial was changed with respect to the fraud, and in the first instance court, one sentence was imposed with heavy emphasis on the offense that has not been changed. Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court cannot be maintained.

Articles 298 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Incheon Branch Court Decision 72 High Court Decision 138)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

60 days from the detention days before the sentence of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

The main point of the reason for appeal by the prosecutor is that the decision of the court below against the defendant is too uncompared and unfair, and the main point of the reason for appeal by the defendant is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and that the decision of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable

However, it is examined ex officio before the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant. Since the prosecutor changed the criminal facts and applicable provisions of law to the defendant's occupational embezzlement in the trial at the time of original trial by fraud, the above part of the facts charged is changed in the subject of trial, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained. (In case where one sentence is imposed for concurrent crimes with crimes not changed if it is distorted, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the member of the party after pleading is decided as follows.

The fact that a member has forged public documents among the facts charged against the defendant and the relation of evidence is identical to that of the judgment below except for adding "a statement consistent with the facts stated in the judgment by Non-Indicted 1 in the trial" among the summary of evidence, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment below. Thus, it is decided to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the facts of fraud that a member of the public prosecutor recognizes as to the defendant

1. The defendant, at around 11:00 on November 23, 1971, submitted seven copies of the certificate of personal seal impression forged by the defendant to the members of the cooperative loan association that he knew of the fact that he had been forged at KRW 1-2,00 on the 11:0 on the 11:0 on the 11:00 on the 11.23.1, 1971, the defendant knew that Non-Indicted 2 and non-indicted 6 were lawfully receiving the accumulated funds, and was issued KRW 420,00 on the 7:

2. At around 11:00 on January 28, 1972, the defendant submitted three copies of the certificate of personal seal impression forged by the defendant to the above 1 in the above 2-2-2-mentioned facts in the above 3-mentioned No. 11:00, to the above 11:00, the defendant got 30,000 won from the same employee and acquired 1.80,000 won from the above 1-mentioned employee and acquired 3,000 won from the above employee.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that each public document in the judgment of the defendant shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime of using forged public document under the name of the defendant, Article 229 of the Criminal Act, Article 225 of the same Act, and Article 347 (1) of the same Act, and each fraud falls under Article 347 (1) of the same Act, so that each crime of uttering of forged public document shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime of using forged public document under the name of the defendant, Article 40 of the same Act, and Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act, and Article 38 (2) of the same Act shall apply to the crime of uttering of falsified public document, and Article 57 of the same Act shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime of uttering of falsified public document, and Article 55 of the same Act shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime of uttering of falsified public document within the scope of the first sentence of imprisonment with prison labor of the defendant, whichever is the first sentence of imprisonment with prison labor of the above 30 days.

Judges Man-Operation (Presiding Judge)